>>11407311Dismissing counter-narratives without substantive claims and then simply asserting the importance of some garbled "scientific plausibilities" is not only a weak argument, but a non-argument. It's not clear what your disagreement is because you seem to have missed each point entirely.
>equating self-help-esque philosophy with scientific freedomNo, the problem here is that YOU are falsely equating what you've said with "scientific reason".
With a single jpg,
>>11407036 BTFOed you -- in ways that wouldn't have even crossed my mind, in all honesty -- and your ignorance and contentiousness inhibits you from recognising the insight of such a simple observation. With this, you vindicate previous anon,
>>11406982.
Although others have tried to point it out, you fail to realise that transcendentalist literature -- which you dismiss as unpractical, self-help-esque philosophy, lacking any of the truth you self-righteously (and unjustifiably) make claim to -- is not only more comprehensible and logically consistent, but also better evidences the inherent (and achievable) simplicity of life, than any of your incoherent schizo-posting, which itself relies entirely on a series of unrelated factoids.
Your claim that, given the right knowledge, life is simple and easy is *emphatically* qualitative, contestable, and profoundly philosophical. It is a belief that I also share, although I would never arrogantly declare its' pure scientific veracity or self-importantly believe that no other philosophers/thinkers in history shared and evinced the same insights. None of the "scientific plausibilities" you have suggested support the claim. With every post, you fail to acknowledge and then counteract criticisms and instead opt for outright repudiation and dismissal. With obstinacy, you to turn your nose up at thought and literature which better encapsulates and justifies the notions you maintain. You're not only pompous, but a literal pleb.
